Thakrar v. StockX, LLC
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Thakrar v. StockX, LLC
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Poojan Thakrar, Civil No. 24-cv-1901 (JMB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
StockX, LLC,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Poojan Thakrar’s Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) (“IFP Application”). For
the following reasons, the Court denies the IFP Application.
“The central question [when assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(‘IFP’)] is whether the movant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship
or deprivation of the necessities of life.” Ayers v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 70 F.3d
1268, 1268 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,335 U.S. 331
, 339–40 (1948) (brackets added)); see also, e.g., Daramola v. Dungarvin Inc., No. 24-cv-0761 (KMM/DJF),2024 WL 1444100
, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2024) (citing cases, including Ayers). Based on his IFP Application, Mr. Thakrar will not experience undue hardship or be deprived of life’s necessities if he proceeds in this action without in forma pauperis status. Mr. Thakrar is a recent law-school graduate who received $14,750 in monthly pay from a summer internship in 2022 and $9,000 dollars in monthly pay from a summer internship in 2023. (ECF No. 2 at 2.) He reports having $38,200 in a brokerage account that appears to be completely liquid, and $65,100 total in Roth and traditional IRAs. (Id.) Finally, he states that in September he will start a job that pays almost $7,000 a month. (See id. at 5.) Given these factors, the Court denies the IFP Application. See, e.g., Larson v. Minnesota Dep't of Hum. Servs., 23-cv-1823 (JRT/DJF),2023 WL 4160599
, at *1 (D. Minn. June 23, 2023) (denying an IFP application when the plaintiff had $1,500 in cash with limited expenses); Brown v. Dinwiddie,280 F. App’x 713
, 715–16 (10th Cir. 2008) (denying an IFP application when the plaintiff had $850.00 in his savings account).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff Poojan Thakrar’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.
2. By June 14, 2024, Mr. Thakrar must either: (1) pay this action’s filing fee;
or (2) submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
If he does neither, the Court will recommend dismissing this action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Dated: May 24, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Poojan Thakrar, Civil No. 24-cv-1901 (JMB/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
StockX, LLC,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Poojan Thakrar’s Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) (“IFP Application”). For
the following reasons, the Court denies the IFP Application.
“The central question [when assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(‘IFP’)] is whether the movant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship
or deprivation of the necessities of life.” Ayers v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 70 F.3d
1268, 1268 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,335 U.S. 331
, 339–40 (1948) (brackets added)); see also, e.g., Daramola v. Dungarvin Inc., No. 24-cv-0761 (KMM/DJF),2024 WL 1444100
, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2024) (citing cases, including Ayers). Based on his IFP Application, Mr. Thakrar will not experience undue hardship or be deprived of life’s necessities if he proceeds in this action without in forma pauperis status. Mr. Thakrar is a recent law-school graduate who received $14,750 in monthly pay from a summer internship in 2022 and $9,000 dollars in monthly pay from a summer internship in 2023. (ECF No. 2 at 2.) He reports having $38,200 in a brokerage account that appears to be completely liquid, and $65,100 total in Roth and traditional IRAs. (Id.) Finally, he states that in September he will start a job that pays almost $7,000 a month. (See id. at 5.) Given these factors, the Court denies the IFP Application. See, e.g., Larson v. Minnesota Dep't of Hum. Servs., 23-cv-1823 (JRT/DJF),2023 WL 4160599
, at *1 (D. Minn. June 23, 2023) (denying an IFP application when the plaintiff had $1,500 in cash with limited expenses); Brown v. Dinwiddie,280 F. App’x 713
, 715–16 (10th Cir. 2008) (denying an IFP application when the plaintiff had $850.00 in his savings account).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff Poojan Thakrar’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.
2. By June 14, 2024, Mr. Thakrar must either: (1) pay this action’s filing fee;
or (2) submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
If he does neither, the Court will recommend dismissing this action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Dated: May 24, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown